| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
17 Jul 2005 09:53:32 PM |
| Object: |
Hiroshima |
During these next few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima will dominate much of the media's attention. Many articles
will be written and documentaries broadcast detailing the suffering of
the city's population. None of these outlets should forget to also
detail the initial sneak attack at Pearl Harbor that commenced this
war, killing thousands of innocent Americans. They should remember to
run articles and films detailing the atrocities perpetrated on allied
POW's, crimes as vile as anything the Nazi's committed in Russia. They
should detail the occupation of the Asian countries that fell under the
Japanese sword. Was the bombing justified? If it saved even ONE
American life, it was worth it. August 6th should be commemorated as a
holiday honoring Harry Truman.
http://www.abcasiapacific.com/news/stories/asiapacific_stories_141604...
The Japanese city of Hiroshima is preparing to commemorate the 60th
anniversary of the world's first atomic bombing on August 6.
Some 140,000 people, almost half the city's population at the time,
died immediately or in the months after the nuclear attack from
radiation injuries or horrific burns.
Latest research has found 76-percent of survivors still experience
flashbacks.
The Hiroshima bombing was followed by the dropping of a second atomic
bomb on the city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, leaving tens of
thousands more dead.
.
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
19 Jul 2005 08:32:03 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121772827.737431.249660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:
It was either that or else the U.S. would have had to use ground
troops in an invasion on Japan and we would have lost thousands and
they would have lost thousands as well. The war would have gone on
for a longer period of time.
Just keep telling yourself that. You may, one day, really believe
it...
I don't have to repeat it, it's the truth.
coward heishman, the abortion newsgroups most prolific liar and the creep
who lied about having combat experience is now trying to justify the horror
of hiroshima.
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
20 Jul 2005 08:03:28 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969860FFD2132keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121772827.737431.249660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:
It was either that or else the U.S. would have had to use ground
troops in an invasion on Japan and we would have lost thousands and
they would have lost thousands as well. The war would have gone on
for a longer period of time.
Just keep telling yourself that. You may, one day, really believe
it...
I don't have to repeat it, it's the truth.
coward heishman, the abortion newsgroups most prolific liar and the creep
who lied about having combat experience is now trying to justify the
horror
of hiroshima.
I'm sorry, James, but I have to agree with Robert on this. Japan would
never have surrendered: one only has to look at Iwo Jima, which wasn't even
their homeland - the Japanese had 21,000 soldiers there and less than 1,000,
mostly injured, were taken prisoner. All the rest died, taking about 7,000
US troops with them. They would have defended their homeland even more
fiercely. The only time the Japanese ever retreated and didn't commit mass
suicide was in Kohima on the Burma/India border, when they were defeated by
British and Commonwealth troops, after they lost 65,000 troops. They
couldn't, of course, retreat from Iwo Jima because it's an island, and those
who realised that the position was hopeless committed suicide. They were a
stubborn, fanatical enemy (just take a look at what they did in Nanking),
who wouldn't even surrender after Hiroshima - it took Nagasaki and the
Russian declaration of war on them to achieve that. The Japanese lost
something like ten times more through conventional warfare than they did
from both atomic bombs.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
20 Jul 2005 10:54:04 PM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969860FFD2132keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121772827.737431.249660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:
It was either that or else the U.S. would have had to use ground
troops in an invasion on Japan and we would have lost thousands and
they would have lost thousands as well. The war would have gone on
for a longer period of time.
Just keep telling yourself that. You may, one day, really believe
it...
I don't have to repeat it, it's the truth.
coward heishman, the abortion newsgroups most prolific liar and the creep
who lied about having combat experience is now trying to justify the
horror
of hiroshima.
I'm sorry, James, but I have to agree with Robert on this. Japan would
never have surrendered: one only has to look at Iwo Jima, which wasn't even
their homeland - the Japanese had 21,000 soldiers there and less than 1,000,
mostly injured, were taken prisoner. All the rest died, taking about 7,000
US troops with them. They would have defended their homeland even more
fiercely. The only time the Japanese ever retreated and didn't commit mass
suicide was in Kohima on the Burma/India border, when they were defeated by
British and Commonwealth troops, after they lost 65,000 troops. They
couldn't, of course, retreat from Iwo Jima because it's an island, and those
who realised that the position was hopeless committed suicide. They were a
stubborn, fanatical enemy (just take a look at what they did in Nanking),
who wouldn't even surrender after Hiroshima - it took Nagasaki and the
Russian declaration of war on them to achieve that. The Japanese lost
something like ten times more through conventional warfare than they did
from both atomic bombs.
Excellent point June and I also pointed to Iwo Jima. One has to look
at their mindset during WWII, they were willing to die.
JAPANESE STRATEGY
General Kuribayashi, the Japanese Commander of Iwo Jima, was brilliant.
An aristocrat, he was educated in the Canada and toured the US. In
Japan, he was one of the few soldiers ever granted an audience by
Emperor Hirohito. His preparations, fortifications and strategy were
marvels in the history of warfare.
The Japanese strategy was unique for three reasons:
1. The Japanese didn't fight above ground. They fought the battle
entirely from beneath the ground. They dug 1,500 rooms into the rock.
These were connected with 16 miles of tunnels.
2. Japanese strategy called for "no Japanese survivors." They planned
not to survive.
3. Japanese strategy was for each soldier to kill 10 Americans before
they themselves are killed.
In Tokyo months before the invasion, General Kuribayashi had been told
"if America's casualties are high enough, Washington will think twice
before launching an another invasion against Japanese territory."
The Japanese strategy of "no Japanese survivors" is heroic Japanese
stance is commonly glorified in Japanese historical novels, plays and
movies. It touches at the heart of the Japanese sense of sacrifice of
the individual for the greater good.
"You must not expect my survival," General Kuribayashi wrote to his
wife long before the invasion came.
General Kuribayashi's command center had 5 ft. thick walls, a 10 ft.
thick roof. This cement capsule was under 75 ft. of solid rock.
http://www.iwojima.com/battle/battlea.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ricky Ticket" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 03:04:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:54:04 -0400, osprey wrote
(in message <1121918044.892400.253240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
JAPANESE STRATEGY
General Kuribayashi, the Japanese Commander of Iwo Jima, was brilliant.
::yawn::
--
"I respect how Hitler came into power." --Osprey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
23 Jul 2005 02:55:16 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
junegill wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969860FFD2132keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121772827.737431.249660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:
It was either that or else the U.S. would have had to use ground
troops in an invasion on Japan and we would have lost thousands and
they would have lost thousands as well. The war would have gone on
for a longer period of time.
Just keep telling yourself that. You may, one day, really believe
it...
I don't have to repeat it, it's the truth.
coward heishman, the abortion newsgroups most prolific liar and the creep
who lied about having combat experience is now trying to justify the
horror
of hiroshima.
I'm sorry, James, but I have to agree with Robert on this. Japan would
never have surrendered: one only has to look at Iwo Jima, which wasn't even
their homeland - the Japanese had 21,000 soldiers there and less than 1,000,
mostly injured, were taken prisoner. All the rest died, taking about 7,000
US troops with them. They would have defended their homeland even more
fiercely. The only time the Japanese ever retreated and didn't commit mass
suicide was in Kohima on the Burma/India border, when they were defeated by
British and Commonwealth troops, after they lost 65,000 troops. They
couldn't, of course, retreat from Iwo Jima because it's an island, and those
who realised that the position was hopeless committed suicide. They were a
stubborn, fanatical enemy (just take a look at what they did in Nanking),
who wouldn't even surrender after Hiroshima - it took Nagasaki and the
Russian declaration of war on them to achieve that. The Japanese lost
something like ten times more through conventional warfare than they did
from both atomic bombs.
Excellent point June and I also pointed to Iwo Jima. One has to look
at their mindset during WWII, they were willing to die.
JAPANESE STRATEGY
General Kuribayashi, the Japanese Commander of Iwo Jima, was brilliant.
An aristocrat, he was educated in the Canada and toured the US. In
Japan, he was one of the few soldiers ever granted an audience by
Emperor Hirohito. His preparations, fortifications and strategy were
marvels in the history of warfare.
The Japanese strategy was unique for three reasons:
1. The Japanese didn't fight above ground. They fought the battle
entirely from beneath the ground. They dug 1,500 rooms into the rock.
These were connected with 16 miles of tunnels.
2. Japanese strategy called for "no Japanese survivors." They planned
not to survive.
3. Japanese strategy was for each soldier to kill 10 Americans before
they themselves are killed.
In Tokyo months before the invasion, General Kuribayashi had been told
"if America's casualties are high enough, Washington will think twice
before launching an another invasion against Japanese territory."
The Japanese strategy of "no Japanese survivors" is heroic Japanese
stance is commonly glorified in Japanese historical novels, plays and
movies. It touches at the heart of the Japanese sense of sacrifice of
the individual for the greater good.
"You must not expect my survival," General Kuribayashi wrote to his
wife long before the invasion came.
General Kuribayashi's command center had 5 ft. thick walls, a 10 ft.
thick roof. This cement capsule was under 75 ft. of solid rock.
thanx for real info.
Without quibbling over the other facts, the fact was that Tojo and the
boys were perfectly willing to let Japanese civilians die, just like
Hitler in his bunker let Germans die, so long as they could keep on
living a few more months while the ground invasion went on.
But when they heard about the nukes, and realized that the bunker they
hid their own rectal orifices in was not deep enough, and that they
could die tomorrow... then the war was over.
And likewise with the USSR & USA, with Pakistan & India, had it not
been for the *nukes*, war would have broken out because it would, as
it has always been in history, the grunts who get to die first. But
when the honchos all figured out that a nuke would have their name on
it, *then* they decided that dying first wasnt such a good idea.
Somehow, the opponents of nukes, so concerned for the welfare of the
masses, never give thot to the welfare of the honchos, and therefore
dont realize how nukes prevent war.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ryd" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
20 Jul 2005 08:41:01 PM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
I'm sorry, James, but I have to agree with Robert on this. Japan would
never have surrendered: one only has to look at Iwo Jima, which wasn't even
their homeland - the Japanese had 21,000 soldiers there and less than 1,000,
mostly injured, were taken prisoner. All the rest died, taking about 7,000
US troops with them. They would have defended their homeland even more
fiercely. The only time the Japanese ever retreated and didn't commit mass
suicide was in Kohima on the Burma/India border, when they were defeated by
British and Commonwealth troops, after they lost 65,000 troops. They
couldn't, of course, retreat from Iwo Jima because it's an island, and those
who realised that the position was hopeless committed suicide. They were a
stubborn, fanatical enemy (just take a look at what they did in Nanking),
who wouldn't even surrender after Hiroshima - it took Nagasaki and the
Russian declaration of war on them to achieve that. The Japanese lost
something like ten times more through conventional warfare than they did
from both atomic bombs.
Wow. You're really good with numbers.
How many Japanese women and children were killed in the Tokyo
firebombing and the two atomic explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and
the relevant months thereafter? What is your best estimate of this
number?
Don't tell me the rationale for killing those civilians, just the
number for the killed women and children, please.
Thanks, even though I highly doubt you will answer.
You don't have the intellectual capacity to do so, much less the
respect for human life, I think.
Ryd
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
22 Jul 2005 07:24:13 AM |
|
|
"Ryd" <ryda56p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121910061.331512.37970@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
junegill wrote:
I'm sorry, James, but I have to agree with Robert on this. Japan would
never have surrendered: one only has to look at Iwo Jima, which wasn't
even
their homeland - the Japanese had 21,000 soldiers there and less than
1,000,
mostly injured, were taken prisoner. All the rest died, taking about
7,000
US troops with them. They would have defended their homeland even more
fiercely. The only time the Japanese ever retreated and didn't commit
mass
suicide was in Kohima on the Burma/India border, when they were defeated
by
British and Commonwealth troops, after they lost 65,000 troops. They
couldn't, of course, retreat from Iwo Jima because it's an island, and
those
who realised that the position was hopeless committed suicide. They
were a
stubborn, fanatical enemy (just take a look at what they did in
Nanking),
who wouldn't even surrender after Hiroshima - it took Nagasaki and the
Russian declaration of war on them to achieve that. The Japanese lost
something like ten times more through conventional warfare than they did
from both atomic bombs.
Wow. You're really good with numbers.
How many Japanese women and children were killed in the Tokyo
firebombing and the two atomic explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and
the relevant months thereafter? What is your best estimate of this
number?
I suppose it must have been about two-thirds of the number of people killed
by the atomic bombs, say 160,000.
Don't tell me the rationale for killing those civilians, just the
number for the killed women and children, please.
Thanks, even though I highly doubt you will answer.
You don't have the intellectual capacity to do so,
Ad homs already - shows that you think your arguments are weak.
much less the
respect for human life, I think.
On the contrary, it's because I have respect for human life that I support
Truman's decision to drop the bombs. The civilian casualties would have
been no less and probably a great deal more if the bombs hadn't been
dropped - certainly the civilian casualties of China, which numbered several
_million_ at the hands of the Japanese, would have continued to rise. Is it
less horrific if civilian casualties accrue to 250,000 in smaller numbers
over time than in one fell swoop? If so, please explain why. There were
about 200,000 allied prisoners-of-war in Japanese hands and the order had
already been given to slaughter them if the mainland should be invaded.
Would it have been preferable to you that they should have been killed and
if so, why? As it is, only about 100,000 of the poor wretches survived -
have you forgotten (or did you never know) how they were treated?
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sadburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
20 Jul 2005 11:33:33 PM |
|
|
In article <1121910061.331512.37970@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ryd"
<ryda56p@yahoo.com> wrote:
How many Japanese women and children were killed in the Tokyo
firebombing and the two atomic explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and
the relevant months thereafter? What is your best estimate of this
number?
It's my understanding that about 150,000 people died in both Nagasaki and
Hiroshima either when the bombs detonated or in the ensuing months. Beyond
that, who knows. Yes, more people might have died in combat, but all the
people who died in the bombings were civilians. They weren't caught in the
crossfires of urban warfare, they weren't in the wrong place at the wrong
time; no, they were purposefully singled out, and the only thing they
needed to do was die.
I think of Hiroshima as the ultimate terrorist act, the most
reprehensible single act in the history of the world. America also set a
nuclear precedent for war, though luckily no nation has dropped a hostile
nuke since. We would have never had to worry about North Korea and China,
or India and Pakistan, much less nuclear Al Quaeda, if it wasn't for the
Manhattan project: America is the only country with the resources and
intelligence to have developed the bomb.
For fear of cheapening my convictions above, I feel Robert Oppenheimer's
ties to the occult- and the spirit of perversity that suffused the entire
Manhattan project- also warrants mentioning. The older I get, the more
likely it seems that history is guided by very sinister forces.
--
email------ - - . i'd like least be an inuit cuz
. everything is cold and ***** and
web-------- - - . everything's made of snow and *****
home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow . when you're an eskimo and *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 05:44:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:33:33 GMT, (Sadburger)
in alt.abortion with message-id
<tagutcow-2107050031370001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com> wrote:
In article <1121910061.331512.37970@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ryd"
<ryda56p@yahoo.com> wrote:
How many Japanese women and children were killed in the Tokyo
firebombing and the two atomic explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and
the relevant months thereafter? What is your best estimate of this
number?
It's my understanding that about 150,000 people died in both Nagasaki and
Hiroshima either when the bombs detonated or in the ensuing months. Beyond
that, who knows. Yes, more people might have died in combat, but all the
people who died in the bombings were civilians. They weren't caught in the
crossfires of urban warfare, they weren't in the wrong place at the wrong
time; no, they were purposefully singled out, and the only thing they
needed to do was die.
Their country was at war, and that made them targets. They supported
the war effort through supplying the material needed and supporting
the governing body that had not surrendered.
I think of Hiroshima as the ultimate terrorist act
Absolute nonsense. We could have hit Tokyo, but we wanted to leave
the government intact so there would be someone to surrender.
, the most
reprehensible single act in the history of the world. America also set a
nuclear precedent for war, though luckily no nation has dropped a hostile
nuke since. We would have never had to worry about North Korea and China,
or India and Pakistan, much less nuclear Al Quaeda, if it wasn't for the
Manhattan project: America is the only country with the resources and
intelligence to have developed the bomb.
Absolute nonsense. Germany was working on it, as was Japan. Germany
already had a missile delivery system, as well as jet fighters at the
end of the war.
Only in recent years has it become clear how close the war actually
was.
If Truman has not dropped the bombs he should have been shot.
For fear of cheapening my convictions above, I feel Robert Oppenheimer's
ties to the occult- and the spirit of perversity that suffused the entire
Manhattan project- also warrants mentioning. The older I get, the more
likely it seems that history is guided by very sinister forces.
Your delusions are showing. And your paranoia is apparent.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
02 Aug 2005 03:31:38 AM |
|
|
Sadburger wrote:
It's my understanding that about 150,000 people died in
both Nagasaki and Hiroshima either when the bombs
detonated or in the ensuing months. Beyond that, who
knows.
RERF knows. It's part of their job.
Yes, more people might have died in combat, but all the
people who died in the bombings were civilians.
What nonsense!
There were 20,000 Japanese soldiers killed at Hiroshima. And the bombs
also destroyed important military facilities.
I think of Hiroshima as the ultimate terrorist act, the
most reprehensible single act in the history of the world.
It wasn't nearly as reprehensible as the acts that Japan was
committing, which the A-bombs were trying to halt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
04 Aug 2005 01:22:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I think of Hiroshima as the ultimate terrorist act, the
most reprehensible single act in the history of the world.
It wasn't nearly as reprehensible as the acts that Japan was
committing, which the A-bombs were trying to halt.
Well, FDR could have negotiated with Japan beforehand, gotten the
guarantees for US interests, and let the Japs take over French,
Dutch, and English holdings. And let the Asians see how they like
Asian control rather than all us white people.
Japan was reported here as having killed 17 million. I dunno how
many more they wouldda wiped out, but our buddy Mao killed 50
million, and so did our buddy Stalin. Never mind what General
Chang Kai Chek killed. Or our other friends since.
The liberal mined never think about how many wars were not waged
because of nukes. By June, everyone saw how Hitler was willing to
let millions of Germans die so long as he could keep on living in
his miserable bunker a few more months. Tojo was no different. But
when he realized that the bunker he had his own rectal orifice in
was not deep enough for a nuke... then the war was over.
Every leader since Tojo knows, in stark contrast to 5000 years of
history when the grunts got to die first, that there will be a nuke
with their name on it, and the leaders get to die first.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 05:38:55 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2005 18:41:01 -0700, "Ryd" <ryda56p@yahoo.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1121910061.331512.37970@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
junegill wrote:
I'm sorry, James, but I have to agree with Robert on this. Japan would
never have surrendered: one only has to look at Iwo Jima, which wasn't even
their homeland - the Japanese had 21,000 soldiers there and less than 1,000,
mostly injured, were taken prisoner. All the rest died, taking about 7,000
US troops with them. They would have defended their homeland even more
fiercely. The only time the Japanese ever retreated and didn't commit mass
suicide was in Kohima on the Burma/India border, when they were defeated by
British and Commonwealth troops, after they lost 65,000 troops. They
couldn't, of course, retreat from Iwo Jima because it's an island, and those
who realised that the position was hopeless committed suicide. They were a
stubborn, fanatical enemy (just take a look at what they did in Nanking),
who wouldn't even surrender after Hiroshima - it took Nagasaki and the
Russian declaration of war on them to achieve that. The Japanese lost
something like ten times more through conventional warfare than they did
from both atomic bombs.
Wow. You're really good with numbers.
How many Japanese women and children were killed in the Tokyo
firebombing and the two atomic explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and
the relevant months thereafter? What is your best estimate of this
number?
It does not matter.
Don't tell me the rationale for killing those civilians, just the
number for the killed women and children, please.
Irrelevant.
Thanks, even though I highly doubt you will answer.
You don't have the intellectual capacity to do so, much less the
respect for human life, I think.
I doubt you were even alive at the time, so you have not earned the
right to an opinion on this.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
23 Jul 2005 02:52:16 PM |
|
|
Without quibbling over the other facts, the fact was that Tojo and the
boys were perfectly willing to let Japanese civilians die, just like
Hitler in his bunker let Germans die, so long as they could keep on
living a few more months while the ground invasion went on.
But when they heard about the nukes, and realized that the bunker they
hid their own rectal orifices in was not deep enough, and that they
could die tomorrow... then the war was over.
And likewise with the USSR & USA, with Pakistan & India, had it not
been for the *nukes*, war would have broken out because it would, as
it has always been in history, the grunts who get to die first. But
when the honchos all figured out that a nuke would have their name on
it, *then* they decided that dying first wasnt such a good idea.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ricky Ticket" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
20 Jul 2005 03:50:12 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 9:32:03 -0400, james g. keegan jr. wrote
(in message <Xns969860FFD2132keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>):
coward heishman, the abortion newsgroups most prolific liar and the creep
who lied about having combat experience is now trying to justify the horror
of hiroshima.
What do you expect from a Klan member that loves hitler? ;o)
--
³If anyone acts like a *****, it's Ricky. Don't cry maggot, she asked to be
called a *****.² --Robert Heishman (AKA Osprey)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
20 Jul 2005 05:07:58 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:50:12 GMT, Ricky Ticket <not@given.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 9:32:03 -0400, james g. keegan jr. wrote
(in message <Xns969860FFD2132keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>):
coward heishman, the abortion newsgroups most prolific liar and the creep
who lied about having combat experience is now trying to justify the horror
of hiroshima.
What do you expect from a Klan member that loves hitler? ;o)
Heishman reminds me of Doug Copp--every here of that fraud?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
20 Jul 2005 07:12:10 AM |
|
|
Ricky Ticket <not@given.com> wrote in
news:0001HW.BF03888A0024C7182DDB06D0@news.east.earthlink.net:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 9:32:03 -0400, james g. keegan jr. wrote
(in message <Xns969860FFD2132keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>):
coward heishman, the abortion newsgroups most prolific liar and the
creep who lied about having combat experience is now trying to
justify the horror of hiroshima.
What do you expect from a Klan member that loves hitler? ;o)
"If anyone acts like a *****, it's Ricky. Don't cry maggot, she asked
to be called a *****." --Robert Heishman (AKA Osprey)
anyone sane who bothered to read a few of coward bobby's posts would view
him with contempt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Secretary of HomIntern" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
19 Jul 2005 11:10:46 AM |
|
|
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when osprey wrote:
The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when osprey wrote:
Ryd wrote:
200,000 + civilians killed by atomic weapons.
Why on earth would Truman kill so many CIVILIANS???
Oh, I know, they were JAPANESE CIVILIANS!
And KILLING THEM WITH A WEAPON NEVER BEFORE USED ON HUMANS JUST SEEMED
LIKE THE THING TO DO AT THE TIME.
Ryda
It was either that or else the U.S. would have had to use ground troops
in an invasion on Japan and we would have lost thousands and they would
have lost thousands as well. The war would have gone on for a longer
period of time.
Just keep telling yourself that. You may, one day, really believe it...
I don't have to repeat it, it's the truth. I happened to study a little
bit about the Japanese attitude during WWII and they were not giving
up.
Read up on it at www.iwojima.com and read about the Japanese General.
They give an excellent description of the Japanese mindset during that
period and we also learned later that a land evasion would have cost
thousands if not millions of lives.
"Might" have, not "would". Stop treating guesses as certainties; it's very
annoying and unscientific. Since it _did_ cost hundreds of thousands
anyway, it might have cost only that much even if you'd done it the hard
way. Of course, you're probably referring to American lives. Bragging about
saving lives on your own side isn't really all that noble. Bragging about
not having taken many more lives than you did isn't noble, either. It's
arrogant -- but typically American. Lucky for me, I know some highly
atypical Americans, so not all of you are such snots, anyway.
http://www.iwojima.com/battle/battlea.htm
The bomb, as evil as it is, ended the war and launched the U.S. into
becoming the Superpower we are today.
So, apart from ending the war, what's the bright side?
The ending of the war was a bright side. Today, Japan and the U.S. are
no longer enemies.
So what? America's the bully now. If Japan had a decent military, they might
be your enemies again, but wearing whiter hats than your guys.
--
_______________________________________________
"The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
Killfiled by: directory
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ricky Ticket" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
20 Jul 2005 03:45:57 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 7:33:47 -0400, osprey wrote
(in message <1121772827.737431.249660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
I don't have to repeat it, it's the truth. I happened to study a little
bit about the Japanese attitude during WWII and they were not giving
up.
<snip>
Let me explain spuds view of Japan pre 1945. It's about the same as his views
on Germany (see sig)...
--
"I respect how Hitler came into power." --Osprey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fanny Fern" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
18 Jul 2005 10:35:36 AM |
|
|
On 18 Jul 2005 08:25:26 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
[...]
The bomb, as evil as it is, ended the war and launched the U.S. into
becoming the Superpower we are today.
Only that your beloved president, Bush, is responsible for slowly
dismantling your country's good fortune. I'll bet you're proud.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
29 Jul 2005 06:59:37 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
During these next few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima will dominate much of the media's attention. Many articles
will be written and documentaries broadcast detailing the suffering of
the city's population. None of these outlets should forget to also
detail the initial sneak attack at Pearl Harbor that commenced this
war, killing thousands of innocent Americans. They should remember to
run articles and films detailing the atrocities perpetrated on allied
POW's, crimes as vile as anything the Nazi's committed in Russia. They
should detail the occupation of the Asian countries that fell under the
Japanese sword.
agreed - however Nagasaki was a crime.
3-days was a rush job so as to test Plutonium health effects.
should have given them 2-weeks to think it over...........I suspect they
would have surrendered after verifing that the first one was a real a-bomb.
Was the bombing justified?
first one was.
second one was not.
If it saved even ONE
American life, it was worth it.
-------------ummmmmmmmmmmmm no.
that would be genocide Sir.
if it saved 100,000 or 10,000 yes.
not if it was to save one.
August 6th should be commemorated as a
holiday honoring Harry Truman.
no. there is nothing to celibrate about the horror of an a-bomb blast.
we can have our holiday on Sept.2 instead...day of formal surrender.
http://www.abcasiapacific.com/news/stories/asiapacific_stories_141604...
The Japanese city of Hiroshima is preparing to commemorate the 60th
anniversary of the world's first atomic bombing on August 6.
Some 140,000 people, almost half the city's population at the time,
died immediately or in the months after the nuclear attack from
radiation injuries or horrific burns.
Latest research has found 76-percent of survivors still experience
flashbacks.
"flash"backs?
no pun intended!!??
The Hiroshima bombing was followed by the dropping of a second atomic
bomb on the city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, leaving tens of
thousands more dead.
yep.
--
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if
exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
.
|
|
|
| User: "JCarew" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
29 Jul 2005 09:33:31 PM |
|
|
JMJ
"gaffo" wrote in message
J Young wrote:
During these next few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima will dominate much of the media's attention. Many articles
will be written and documentaries broadcast detailing the suffering of
the city's population. None of these outlets should forget to also
detail the initial sneak attack at Pearl Harbor that commenced this
war, killing thousands of innocent Americans. They should remember to
run articles and films detailing the atrocities perpetrated on allied
POW's, crimes as vile as anything the Nazi's committed in Russia. They
should detail the occupation of the Asian countries that fell under the
Japanese sword.
agreed - however Nagasaki was a crime.
3-days was a rush job so as to test Plutonium health effects.
should have given them 2-weeks to think it over...........I suspect they
would have surrendered after verifing that the first one was a real
a-bomb.
Was the bombing justified?
first one was.
second one was not.
If it saved even ONE
American life, it was worth it.
It is if your one of the lives saved.
I was one of those scheduled for the invasion
of Japan
-------------ummmmmmmmmmmmm no.
that would be genocide Sir.
if it saved 100,000 or 10,000 yes.
See below
Why we dropped the A Bomb
The Magic(see note) summaries President Truman and
the Joint Chiefs were reading indicated the Japanese
were not about to surrender thus making it necessary
for us to use the A bomb(see below). Only six Americans
were authorized to read these intercepts. President
Truman became one of the six after the death of
Roosevelt.
General Marshall knew prior to the February 1945 Yalta
Conference that Russia would break its nonaggression pact
with Japan and attack Manchuria about 90 days after the
surrender of Germany (VE Day) The Magic Summaries
documented the shift of Soviet troops by rail from Europe
to the Far East for this purpose. We also knew from the
Magic decrypts that the Japanese home islands were to
be defended from invasion and occupation by 2.3 million
troops, another four million Army and Navy employees and
a newly created armed militia numbering 25 million. These
defenders were sworn to fight to the death, which so
many Japanese troops had done in battles throughout the
Pacific.
To effectively invade and occupy Japan, American strategists
foresaw two invasions, scheduled for November 1945 and March
1946. The first invasion, on the island of Kyushu would employ
some 770,000 American troops. The follow-up invasion on the
plains of Tokyo, leading to the forced occupation of Japan,
called for two million American troops.
But according to documents that have been uncovered, a
conference to discuss pre-invasion casualties was held at the
White House on June 18, 1945, between President Truman and the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. From the Pacific, Gen. Douglas MacArthur
submitted rather optimistic casualty estimates. This caused
Adm. William D. Leahy, Truman's military advisor, to take
charge of the session. Based on the experience at Iwo Jima and
Okinawa, Leahy predicted that in an invasion of Japan, 30%
to 35% of US soldiers would be killed or wounded during the
first 30 days. Truman obviously understood what Leahy said.
The president remarked that the invasion would create another
Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other. The Joint Chiefs
of Staff agreed.
Suddenly, and only after being advised about the buildup of
Japanese forces and fortifications by Magic intelligence,
MacArthur medical staff revised its pre-invasion needs for
hospital beds upwards by 300%. MacArthur's chief surgeon,
Brig. Gen. Guy Denit, estimated that a 120-day campaign to
invade and occupy only the island of Kyushu would result
in 395,000 casualties.
On July 4, 1945, the British agree to the use of the atomic
bomb against Japan. On July 16, during the Potsdam Conference,
the first A-bomb was successfully tested. A way had been found
to end the war quickly and decisively. This was the situation
on July 26 when the US, Britain and China issued the Potsdam
Declaration to Japan to surrender unconditionally, "The
alternative," said the declaration, "is complete and utter
destruction.
This is what the Americans President Truman, Secretary of War
Stimson and Gen. Marshall knew the day before the first atom
bomb fell on Japan. Confronted by an enemy leadership that
was self-deluded, neither prepared to surrender nor to negotiate
seriously, the Americans decided that the only way to end the
war quickly would be to use overwhelming force: nuclear weapons.
Two bombs were dropped. The Russians invaded Manchuria.
On August 10, Emperor Hirohito overruled his militarist
advisors and accepted the Potsdam declaration. Japan
surrendered.
Note:
Under the code name MAGIC, the United States produced summaries
and transcripts of intercepted and deciphered messages between
the Japanese Foreign office and its key personnel and allies
throughout the world from 1938 to 1945.
Sources: "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire"
By Richard B. Frank, an article "Why Truman Bombed
Hiroshima" from the Wall Street Journal, By Bruce
Lee and "MAGIC the untold story", by David Lowman
Also see:
http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/hiroshima/ytruman.htm
Jim Carew sfo
not if it was to save one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
29 Jul 2005 09:40:32 PM |
|
|
"JCarew" <othmer@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:%FBGe.2700$gt5.831@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
JMJ
"gaffo" wrote in message
J Young wrote:
During these next few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima will dominate much of the media's attention. Many articles
will be written and documentaries broadcast detailing the suffering of
the city's population. None of these outlets should forget to also
detail the initial sneak attack at Pearl Harbor that commenced this
war, killing thousands of innocent Americans. They should remember to
run articles and films detailing the atrocities perpetrated on allied
POW's, crimes as vile as anything the Nazi's committed in Russia. They
should detail the occupation of the Asian countries that fell under the
Japanese sword.
agreed - however Nagasaki was a crime.
3-days was a rush job so as to test Plutonium health effects.
should have given them 2-weeks to think it over...........I suspect they
would have surrendered after verifing that the first one was a real
a-bomb.
Was the bombing justified?
first one was.
second one was not.
If it saved even ONE
American life, it was worth it.
It is if your one of the lives saved.
I was one of those scheduled for the invasion
of Japan
First wave? If memory served, the estimated chance of survival for the
first wave of Kyushu was practically nonexistent. Honshu was probably the
same.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
30 Jul 2005 07:00:12 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:59:37 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<JpzGe.2540$aT1.127@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
During these next few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima will dominate much of the media's attention. Many articles
will be written and documentaries broadcast detailing the suffering of
the city's population. None of these outlets should forget to also
detail the initial sneak attack at Pearl Harbor that commenced this
war, killing thousands of innocent Americans. They should remember to
run articles and films detailing the atrocities perpetrated on allied
POW's, crimes as vile as anything the Nazi's committed in Russia. They
should detail the occupation of the Asian countries that fell under the
Japanese sword.
agreed - however Nagasaki was a crime.
3-days was a rush job so as to test Plutonium health effects.
should have given them 2-weeks to think it over...........I suspect they
would have surrendered after verifing that the first one was a real a-bomb.
No, one showed it was possible. Two showed we were ready, willing,
and able to continue if necessary.
Even after two many of the top Japanese military wanted to continue.
It was the Emperor who surrendered.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
30 Jul 2005 08:23:33 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:59:37 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<JpzGe.2540$aT1.127@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
During these next few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima will dominate much of the media's attention. Many articles
will be written and documentaries broadcast detailing the suffering of
the city's population. None of these outlets should forget to also
detail the initial sneak attack at Pearl Harbor that commenced this
war, killing thousands of innocent Americans. They should remember to
run articles and films detailing the atrocities perpetrated on allied
POW's, crimes as vile as anything the Nazi's committed in Russia. They
should detail the occupation of the Asian countries that fell under the
Japanese sword.
agreed - however Nagasaki was a crime.
3-days was a rush job so as to test Plutonium health effects.
should have given them 2-weeks to think it over...........I suspect they
would have surrendered after verifing that the first one was a real a-bomb.
No, one showed it was possible.
3-days was not enough time!! many though it was another fire-bombing at
the time.
shold have given two-weeks. enough time for scientists to check for
radiation, doctors to check for radiation burns............all takes
more than three days to verify that blast was not simply firebombing.
no, we WANTED to drop the second one before they could surrender - to
check the blast and health effect differences between a Uranium and
Plutonium bomb (IMO of course).
Two showed we were ready, willing,
and able to continue if necessary.
no - one would have been enough to show that.
we had 4 or 5 built and ready to deliver if needed. Droping them 2
and/or 4 weeks later had no tactical dissadvantages over the course of
action we actually took.
Even after two many of the top Japanese military wanted to continue.
- but not most. that is all that matters.
had they had time to verify the first one was atomic and not
conventional, they would have come to their senses without the need for
the second one (IMO of course).
and wating two-weeks would have had no negative effect upon the US.
No, sir. Ask yourself "why the rush to drop the second one".
there is no tactical reason - and so that leaves a political one only.
that being to examine the blast and health effects from Plutonium bombing.
had the japs surrendered before the second bombing - we would have no
test subjects to evaluate the long term health effect differnces between
Plutonium and Uranium.
It was the Emperor who surrendered.
not really. it was all of Japan.
we should have executed the Emperor.............after a fair trial of
course.
--
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still
both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to
take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
30 Jul 2005 12:53:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:23:33 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<pbLGe.2672$IH2.2473@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:59:37 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<JpzGe.2540$aT1.127@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
During these next few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima will dominate much of the media's attention. Many articles
will be written and documentaries broadcast detailing the suffering of
the city's population. None of these outlets should forget to also
detail the initial sneak attack at Pearl Harbor that commenced this
war, killing thousands of innocent Americans. They should remember to
run articles and films detailing the atrocities perpetrated on allied
POW's, crimes as vile as anything the Nazi's committed in Russia. They
should detail the occupation of the Asian countries that fell under the
Japanese sword.
agreed - however Nagasaki was a crime.
3-days was a rush job so as to test Plutonium health effects.
should have given them 2-weeks to think it over...........I suspect they
would have surrendered after verifing that the first one was a real a-bomb.
No, one showed it was possible.
3-days was not enough time!! many though it was another fire-bombing at
the time.
They learned differently.
shold have given two-weeks. enough time for scientists to check for
radiation, doctors to check for radiation burns............all takes
more than three days to verify that blast was not simply firebombing.
No, we needed to show we were ready, willing, and able to start a
continuous campaign, not the ability to drop a couple a month.
no, we WANTED to drop the second one before they could surrender - to
check the blast and health effect differences between a Uranium and
Plutonium bomb (IMO of course).
Actually there were few if any health issues involved. Everything was
geared toward the maximum destruction possible.
Two showed we were ready, willing,
and able to continue if necessary.
no - one would have been enough to show that.
It would not show the ability to continue delivering the weapon.
we had 4 or 5 built and ready to deliver if needed. Droping them 2
and/or 4 weeks later had no tactical dissadvantages over the course of
action we actually took.
I am working from memory, but IIRC those were the only two we had at
the time.
Even after two many of the top Japanese military wanted to continue.
- but not most. that is all that matters.
Actually most. The orders from the emperor to surrender was the only
thing that ended the fighting.
had they had time to verify the first one was atomic and not
conventional, they would have come to their senses without the need for
the second one (IMO of course).
No, to die for the emperor was the best way to die. How they died did
not matter as long as they did not surrender.
and wating two-weeks would have had no negative effect upon the US.
No, sir. Ask yourself "why the rush to drop the second one".
To show we could.
there is no tactical reason - and so that leaves a political one only.
that being to examine the blast and health effects from Plutonium bombing.
No, there were few if any health issues at the time.
had the japs surrendered before the second bombing - we would have no
test subjects to evaluate the long term health effect differnces between
Plutonium and Uranium.
Such a study was not even contemplated at the time. Don;t forget,
fallout was totally unknown.
It was the Emperor who surrendered.
not really. it was all of Japan.
No, it was the emperor. He gave the order.
we should have executed the Emperor.............after a fair trial of
course.
We agreed not to touch him as a condition of the surrender.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
02 Aug 2005 05:58:54 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I am working from memory, but IIRC those were the only two
we had at the time.
We were making them at a rate of about three a month, starting at the
end of July.
The third one for August was about a week away from hitting Tokyo when
they gave up.
Starting in December the production rate would have risen to 7+ a
month.
Such a study was not even contemplated at the time. Don;t
forget, fallout was totally unknown.
Well, we did have as bit of an idea.
But fallout was not significant, as we used airbursts.
We agreed not to touch him as a condition of the
surrender.
We did no such thing.
In fact, the surrender terms gave MacArthur the power to depose the
Emperor at will.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
30 Jul 2005 11:13:15 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
we had 4 or 5 built and ready to deliver if needed. Droping them 2
and/or 4 weeks later had no tactical dissadvantages over the course of
action we actually took.
I am working from memory, but IIRC those were the only two we had at
the time.
no - we had 4 at least. I think, but not sure - they were on guam at
that time.
I have a book on the US Nuclear Arms Production. It lists a probable 4
or 5 at the time of Fat Man drop. this is all still classified - so
"probable" is as good as us mortals will ever get.
and wating two-weeks would have had no negative effect upon the US.
No, sir. Ask yourself "why the rush to drop the second one".
To show we could.
we showed that well enough with the first one.
there is no tactical reason - and so that leaves a political one only.
that being to examine the blast and health effects from Plutonium bombing.
No, there were few if any health issues at the time.
had the japs surrendered before the second bombing - we would have no
test subjects to evaluate the long term health effect differnces between
Plutonium and Uranium.
Such a study was not even contemplated at the time. Don;t forget,
fallout was totally unknown.
It was the Emperor who surrendered.
not really. it was all of Japan.
No, it was the emperor. He gave the order.
we should have executed the Emperor.............after a fair trial of
course.
We agreed not to touch him as a condition of the surrender.
yes - sadly.
I know.
a bad call.
SOB+rope=good to me.
--
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still
both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to
take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
31 Jul 2005 06:55:45 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 04:13:15 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<vdYGe.2390$oY.134@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> wrote:
Attila wrote:
we had 4 or 5 built and ready to deliver if needed. Droping them 2
and/or 4 weeks later had no tactical dissadvantages over the course of
action we actually took.
I am working from memory, but IIRC those were the only two we had at
the time.
no - we had 4 at least. I think, but not sure - they were on guam at
that time.
I have a book on the US Nuclear Arms Production. It lists a probable 4
or 5 at the time of Fat Man drop. this is all still classified - so
"probable" is as good as us mortals will ever get.
I'll take your word on it.
and wating two-weeks would have had no negative effect upon the US.
No, sir. Ask yourself "why the rush to drop the second one".
To show we could.
we showed that well enough with the first one.
But there had been no response from the Japanese government.
there is no tactical reason - and so that leaves a political one only.
that being to examine the blast and health effects from Plutonium bombing.
No, there were few if any health issues at the time.
had the japs surrendered before the second bombing - we would have no
test subjects to evaluate the long term health effect differnces between
Plutonium and Uranium.
Such a study was not even contemplated at the time. Don;t forget,
fallout was totally unknown.
It was the Emperor who surrendered.
not really. it was all of Japan.
No, it was the emperor. He gave the order.
we should have executed the Emperor.............after a fair trial of
course.
We agreed not to touch him as a condition of the surrender.
yes - sadly.
I know.
a bad call.
SOB+rope=good to me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
02 Aug 2005 05:52:13 AM |
|
|
gaffo wrote:
3-days was not enough time!! many though it was another
fire-bombing at the time.
By the next day, they knew of Truman's claim that it was an A-bomb, and
they knew that the entire city had been destroyed by a single bomb.
no, we WANTED to drop the second one before they could
surrender - to check the blast and health effect
differences between a Uranium and Plutonium bomb (IMO of
course).
Your opinion is wrong.
There was no desire to drop the second bomb "before surrender", and no
need to determine health differences between uranium and plutonium.
No, sir. Ask yourself "why the rush to drop the second one".
there is no tactical reason - and so that leaves a political one only.
that being to examine the blast and health effects from Plutonium bombing.
One could try looking at the ACTUAL reason, which was the simple fact
that the bombing order gave instructions to drop each bomb as it became
ready for use.
They were about a week away from getting the third bomb dropped on them
when they gave up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neal Atkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
29 Jul 2005 08:08:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:59:37 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
agreed - however Nagasaki was a crime.
YEAH! Why where were their LAWYERS???? Why didn't the UN airdrop a
few thousand LAWYERS into Japan to tell the japs of their RIGHTS??
should have given them 2-weeks to think it over...........I suspect they
would have surrendered after verifing that the first one was a real a-bomb.
Huh? The fucking japs didn't have running water or electricity. How
would they know what a "real a-bomb" was? Jesus.
Was the bombing justified?
Do you know that AMERICAN tanks can kill opposing tanks THREE THOUSAND
YARDS before the other tanks can get off a round? Do you think that
is "fair"?
first one was.
second one was not.
Eat ***** and die. but first go join the islamist terrorists and have
the U.S. Marines conduct you into "heaven".
If it saved even ONE
American life, it was worth it.
-------------ummmmmmmmmmmmm no.
Are you a jap or a islamofascist?
that would be genocide Sir.
Ask the survivors of Nanking.
August 6th should be commemorated as a
holiday honoring Harry Truman.
I'll bet all the U.S. troops that DIDN'T DIE invading jap land would
agree.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
